You're insane. His site facilitated numerous drug deals for profit. He also paid bitcoin in what he thought was a hit-job (he was duped). This dumbass can rot in prison. Screw him.
There is nothing wrong with facilitating drug deals and there is not a shred of evidence to support the other allegation. An allegation from the US government means absolutely nothing to me.
It's also quite ironic that an organization that has assassinated numerous people are attempting to destroy the reputation of one of their enemies by claiming that he attempted to assassinate somebody.
> It's also quite ironic that an organization that has assassinated numerous people are attempting to destroy the reputation of one of their enemies by claiming that he attempted to assassinate somebody.
The United States Government (USG) enjoys a monopoly of violence (consent of the governed). However, a citizen (or group of them -- org/corp) does not enjoy such rights. Your comparison is invalidated.
Ignoring the fact that many of the people assassinated by the US government where not US citizens and never set foot on anything the US government claimed as territory...
Who exactly is consenting to be governed? I know I'm not consenting but I also know that some other people support the government that purports to govern them. Is it enough for one person to consent or does something magic happen at a particular number or portion?
> Is it enough for one person to consent or does something magic happen at a particular number or portion?
Nah. We have these things called elections (and representational democracy). In general that mechanism decides how society will progress forward from a political perspective.
The US government, acting in accordance with its constitution invades and occupies Canada. Congress creates 13 new states corresponding to the previous provinces and territories and elections are held. Almost all of the elected members from the newly annexed areas are opposed to the annexation and introduce a bill to allow the 13 new states to secede from the US but the bill is overwhelmingly defeated by members of Congress from the other 50 states.
Does the US government in this scenario enjoy the consent of the governed?
If they do, imagine that the original US population was more split on the issue so that the secession bill would have passed with Canada divided into 13 states. However the pre-annexation Congress anticipated this and resolved to make Canada a single state that would consequently not have sufficient representation to pass the bill even with the support of opponents from some of the other 50 states.
Does the US government still enjoy the consent of the governed in the second scenario?
